INTERNAL nvr eENcE.] It will be observed in the foregoing extracts‘ that (up to verse 11 of Mark), besides the matter common to all three writers, Mark and Luke have a good deal of addi- tional matter in common (fipéa-ro, the dat. term. (KuLp)¢§, i’ya dvro, c’.fa7rc'o"rc:)uv airrov Kc:/6V, K(i.Kc'[VoV, Kai. 1’]'rL';Lao"aV, riyrrwwyrdr/, rpds, 7')p.C2V, c’)cL'-o~c-rat Kat’, "rots yccupyoes) ; Mark and Matthew have also much additional matter in common (Kai 1rcpLc'91)Kcv cfipaypov Kai tiipvfcv (1'27ro))':§v(LoV) Kai (IiKo3(i-
- n)o'cV wtipyov, Kai )a,3(51/‘res, 1ni}LV ¢i7re'o"rcL}cV, ¢iiM(oV),
ai7r€KTcLVaV, 7rp(‘;9 a.1'rro1‘29 )£')/coy, Eat-7(0i.'9), £i.‘7r(o)1/, dciirc, )a,361/‘rec, 1rapa Kvpfov Eyévcro aiirwy Kai E'o"nv 9av;.cao'-1'7‘) EV «’;<,b0a},roi‘g 1';p.£Z>v; but, in striking contrast, Matthew and Luke have no additional matter in common, except that in verse 3 of Mark they i11sert- oi yccupyof for clearness; in verse 7 they insert i(361/1'69; and in verse 9 they insert oi‘-V. Are these facts compatible with the theory that Mark com- pounded his narrative out of Matthew and Luke '2 We may begin by dismissing the three trifling words which Matthew and Luke agree in adding to the Triple Tradition (by which we mean the matter co1111no11 to the three Gospels), as being words that any early editor of Mark might naturally insert. The insertion of the subject inverse 3, for clearness, requires no comment. The 031/ in verse 9 softens an abruptness which (however character- istic of Mark) would naturally repel readers and editors. Again, in verse 7 the omission of some phrase to denote that thehusbandmen saw the son approaching before they formed their plan, is so abrupt that E361/T69 or Gcao-dpcvot has been actually supplied i11 Mark by several manuscripts and ver- sions (possibly, of course, influenced by Matthew and Luke), and might naturally be supplied by still earlier editors. Having therefore accounted for these words, we are led to this result, that, from Mk. xii. 1 to Mk. xii. 11, Matthew and Luke contain nothing in common which is not also found in a slightly modified edition of Mark.” This being the case, it can be proved by reductio ml alzsurclzun that _Iark did not copy from Matthew and Luke. For sup- pose that he did so copy, it follows that he must not only have constructed a narrative based upon two others, borrowing here a piece from Matthew and here a piece from Luke, but that he must have deliberately determined to insert, and must have adapted his narrative so as to insert,every word that was common to Matthew and Luke. The difficulty of doing this is enormous, and v. ill be patent to any one who will try to perform a similar literary feat himself. To embody the whole of even one document in a narrative of one’s own, without copying it vc2'bct(i22z, and to do this in a free and natural manner, requires no little care. But to take two documents, to put them side by side and analyse their common matter, and then to write a narrative, graphic, abrupt, and in all respects the oppo- site of artificial, which shall contain every phrase and word that is common to both—-—this would be a tour de force even for a skilful literary forger of these days, and 1 The ordinary type on page 790 exhibits the words and phrases common to all three writers, which we will henceforth call the “ Triple Tradition”; the underlined type that which is common to each pair (in addition to the matter common to the three) ; and the spaced type that which each writer has peculiar to himself alone. The black type in the first column represents that which (in addition to the matter common to the three) is common to Matthew and Mark ; in the second column it represents that which is common to Luke and Matthew ; in the third column, that which is common to Mark and Luke. It follows that the same words which are found as underlined type in the first-, second, and third columns will be found as small black type in the second, third, and first colunms respectively. '3 The verse added in Matt. 'xxi. 44 is emitted by Tischendorf, and is perhaps not part of the text of Matthew. But, if genuine, it is a reference to the “ winnowing-stone” in Daniel ii. 44, 45, which might naturally be added by seine early editor of the original tradition, and might readily be adopted into the subsequent editions of it, which are known to us as the Gospels according to Matthew and Lu].-o_ GOSPELS 791 may be dismissed as an impossibility for the writer of the Second Gospel. For example, Mark might have begun his narrative, Kai E'}c'ycV a1’2‘ro'L‘9, omitting 7rapa.,3o)fV ; he might have borrowed oZKo8eo~1r<5n79 from Matthew and have dropped (ii!/0pa)7ro9; he might have borrowed 7.-c')ui[;a:. from Luke (ver. 11) instead of dvréo--rci)e. Had he done these things (all natural enough), we should have at once had, as additional “ common matter ” for Matthew and Luke, 7.-apa,8o)§y, ziydpun-roe, and ¢i7réo-ru)cy, and all in the space of three verses, and “ com- mon matter” proportionally in the rest of the narrative. We may assume, therefore, that Mark did not copy Matthew and Luke in this passage, nor in other passages where a similar phenomenon occurs. But it occurs throughout by far the greater part of Mark’s narrative. VVe may, there- fore, regard it as absolutely certain that by far the greater part of Mark is not borrowed from Matthew and Luke, and that the duality of phrase, which is undoubtedly a characteristic of Mark, must be explained by other causes. (For other passages where Matthew and Luke have little or no additional matter in common, comparc more espe- eially the passages parallel to Mk. ii. 13-17; iii. 1-6 ;. v. 1—39; x. 17-31; xi. 1-10; xii. 13-27; xiii. 1-19, xiv. 1-16; xv. 1-11.) The question remains, Vere Matthew and Luke entirely dependent upon Mark for that part of their narrative which covers the same ground as Mark? It would not be diflicult, from a comparison of the three columns above, to make it probable that both Matthew and Luke did not borrow from the complete Mark as we have it. For though each of the three additions oi}:/, E861/-rec, oi ycwpyoa’, is in itself natural enough, yet the hypothesis that Matthew and Luke independently adopted precisely these and no other additions is most improbable. From a comparison of many such passages the improbability of the borrowing hypothesis might be increased. But as the process of proof could not be complete, and would certainly be- long, it will be better to bring forward some short passages which are wholly irreconcilable with the hypo- thesis of deliberate borrowing, and which point to an original source, either written or oral, round which the three narratives play. Those passages will be most con- vincing where there are traces that some original tradition has been differently understood by the different writers. (a) One natural error in interpreting a terse tradition (perhaps translated from Aramaic into Greek) would be to supply different subjects to the same verbs, as in the following important passages, which variously describe the message of the angel or angels to the women at the tomb of Jesus :— (1) Matt. xxviii. 7, vrpodj/£1. i'1,u.¢'is' sis‘ Tiyv I‘a7r7ar'av' e’KeT ainbv ¢'J'(z£a‘9e' ifioir, ETTOV 1'1;/.i‘v——“ behold, I have told you." ('2) Mk. xvi. 7, 7rpod-yet i':,u.¢'is' sis‘ 7-3711 I‘a7a7aL'av' £’KeT at‘;-rbv iid/660:, Ka9¢i:s' eT7r§_v 1':/.ii‘V—“ aSHc told you.” On the other hand, Luke, who records several appearances of the Lord to the disciples in or near Jerusalem, and who does not take the Galilean view of the resurrection, finds the words sir 77‘;v I‘. out of place in his narrative. Yet his memory or knowledge of the common tradition is too strong to allow him to omit all mention of Galilee, and he therefore inserts it, but differently. (3) L11. _'xi‘. 6, u.v1'1a'91)-1'6 dis‘ 6’7¢£7)a'ev i':,u.Tv {TL (Tm £11 777 I‘a7r7ai'¢_1 —“ remember how He spake unto you u-Izilc He was still in Galilee.” (B) (1) Matt. iii. 5, 6’££1ro_oeiis-ro -Irpbs afrfbv . . - -Irepixwpos‘ -roii ’Iop8oivou. (:2) Mk. i. 5 (agreeing here _with Matthew), e’§e-zropeiie-ro -zrpbs abfbv . . vrficra ‘F1 Ioufiaia xaipa. L11. iii. 3, 7'57eV sis arficrav -r-hv 7r6pl'xwpov -roii ’Iop8oivou. (7) 111 some cases the confusion is so importar_Jt as seriously to affect the context, as in——- _ (1) Matt. xix. 16, Ai8ai¢rKa7c, 1-L’ dyaebv 7rIm’1crw——wl1icl1 1s -Iratra i) Evidence of an original
source.